User: Password:
|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

Re: [RFC v1] Tunable sched_mc_power_savings=n

From:  Andi Kleen <andi-AT-firstfloor.org>
To:  Linux Kernel <linux-kernel-AT-vger.kernel.org>, svaidy-AT-linux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject:  Re: [RFC v1] Tunable sched_mc_power_savings=n
Date:  Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:49:01 +0200
Message-ID:  <87k5gcqpbm.fsf@basil.nowhere.org>
Cc:  Suresh B Siddha <suresh.b.siddha-AT-intel.com>, Venkatesh Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi-AT-intel.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo-AT-elte.hu>, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra-AT-chello.nl>, Dipankar Sarma <dipankar-AT-in.ibm.com>, Balbir Singh <balbir-AT-linux.vnet.ibm.com>, Vatsa <vatsa-AT-linux.vnet.ibm.com>, Gautham R Shenoy <ego-AT-in.ibm.com>
Archive-link:  Article

Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
>
> The idea being proposed is to enhance the tunable with varied degrees
> of consolidation that can work best for different workload
> characteristics.  echo 2 > /sys/.../sched_mc_power_savings could
> enable more aggressive consolidation than the default.

It would be better to fix the single power saving default to work
better with bursty workloads too than to add more tunables. Tunables
are basically "we give up, let's push the problem to the user"
which is not nice. I suspect a lot of users won't even know if their
workloads are bursty or not.  Or they might have workloads which
are both bursty and not bursty.

Or did you try that and failed?

-Andi


(Log in to post comments)


Copyright © 2008, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds